Appearing on Fox the other night, Judge Andrew Napolitano told Neil Cavuto that Barack Obama's flippant disregard for all other branches but the Executive is getting downright scary

(and that's just going by what he says in public):_______________________________________________________________________

"I think the President is dangerously close to totalitarianism. A few months ago he was saying, the Congress doesnt count. The Congress doesnt mean anything. Im going to rule by decree and administrative regulation. Now hes basically saying the Supreme Court doesnt count. It doesnt matter what they think. They cant review our legislation. That would leave just him as the only branch of government standing, so I think he has some problems with understanding the Constitution or accepting limitations on his power. Look, they are equal branches of government, but with respect to what the law means, or the Constitution means, the Court is superior to the PresidentNo President in modern times has questioned their authority. Theyve questioned the way the authority has been exercised  not their right to make the decision. This is an extreme view of the Supreme Court and the Constitution, one that has not been articulated since Andrew Jackson was in the White House...."

Well if he keeps doing it and Congress does naught, then it’s time for the military to move in and remove him by force, take action on their sworn duty to protect and defend the constitution. (Oh maaaaaaan, would love to see that happen. Perp walk the Noob)

6
posted on 04/07/2012 5:21:42 AM PDT
by GrandJediMasterYoda
(Someday our schools will teach the difference between lose and loose.)

Just caught a bit of WHY Judge Smith asked for the homework assignment last week. It really had to do with mandate against drilling in the gulf that the judge had overruled and that BO had ignored and reissued days after the judge’s ruling.

Do any of you have the details. Judge Nap would help spread the word about BO’s ignoring or ignorance of the law. Would like to bring it to his (and others) attention.

There are lots of reasons to expect a highly visible and long lasting backlash.

Agents prococateur have already instigated the communist revolution, and the counter revolution for the republic’s freedom is prepared.

Unfortunately there will be a very high cost: the welfare state will vanish, and the fiat economy will evaporate.

Omullah desires that outcome. So do all so called progressives. What they fail to grasp is that the chaos they create cannot be controlled. The criminal US government actions will be halted by force. Internal or external force will stop the merchants of evil, that is the lesson of history.

I firmly believe that race riots are on the way, Beck said. They are being encouraged [the Obama administration] will take this country down. If it looks like they are losing, the uber left, they will take it down. If I cant have it, no one will.

In November we MUST close the door on the shadow communist behind Obama like, Bill Ayers, George Soros, Cass Sunstein, Van Jones, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and the rest of the radicals he surrounds himself with and admires.

Mitt Romney was a moderate governor in Massachusetts with an unimpressive record of governance. He left office with an approval rating in the thirties and his signature achievement, Romneycare, was a Hurricane Katrina style disaster for the state. Since that's the case, it's fair to ask what a Republican who's not conservative and can't even carry his own state brings to the table for GOP primary voters. The answer is always the same: Mitt Romney is supposed to be "the most electable" candidate. This is a baffling argument because many people just seem to assume it's true, despite the plethora of evidence to the contrary.

1) People just don't like Mitt: The entire GOP primary process so far has consisted of Republican voters desperately trying to find an alternative to Mitt Romney. Doesn't it say something that GOP primary voters have, at one time or another, preferred Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and now even Ron Paul (In Iowa) to Mitt Romney?

To some people, this is a plus. They think that if conservatives don't like Mitt Romney, that means moderates will like him. This misunderstands how the process of attracting independent voters works in a presidential race. While it's true the swayable moderates don't want to support a candidate they view as an extremist, they also don't just automatically gravitate towards the most "moderate" candidate. To the contrary, independent voters tend to be moved by the excitement of the candidate's base (See John McCain vs. Barack Obama for an example of how this works). This is how a very conservative candidate like Ronald Reagan could win landslide victories. He avoided being labeled an extremist as Goldwater was; yet his supporters were incredibly enthusiastic and moderates responded to it.

Let's be perfectly honest: Mitt Romney excites no one except for Mormons, political consultants, and Jennifer Rubin. To everybody else on the right, Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama would be a "lesser of two evils" election where we'd grudgingly back Mitt because we wouldnt lose as badly with him in the White House as we would with Obama. That's not the sort of thing that gets people fired up to make phone calls, canvass neighborhoods, or even put up "I heart Mitt" signs in their yards.

2) He's a proven political loser: There's a reason Mitt Romney has been able to say that he's "not a career politician." It's because he's not very good at politics. He lost to Ted Kennedy in 1994. Although he did win the governorship of Massachusetts in 2002, he did it without cracking 50% of the vote. Worse yet, he left office as the 48th most popular governor in America and would have lost if he had run again in 2006. Then, to top that off, he failed to capture the GOP nomination in 2008. This time around, despite having almost every advantage over what many people consider to be a weak field of candidates, Romney is still desperately struggling. Choosing Romney as the GOP nominee after running up that sort of track record would be like promoting a first baseman hitting .225 in AAA to the majors.

3) Running weak in the southern states: Barack Obama won North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida in 2008 and you can be sure that he will be targeting all three of those states again. This is a problem for Romney because he would be much less likely than either Gingrich or Perry to carry any of those states. Moderate northern Republicans have consistently performed poorly in the south and Romney won't be any exception. That was certainly the case in 2008 when both McCain and Huckabee dominated Romney in primaries across the south. Mitt didn't win a single primary in a southern state and although he finished second in Florida, he wasn't even competitive in North Carolina or Virginia. Since losing any one of those states could be enough to hand the election to Obama in a close race, Mitt's weakness there is no small matter.

4) His advantages disappear in a general election: It's actually amazing that Mitt Romney isn't lapping the whole field by 50 points because he has every advantage. Mitt has been running for President longer than the other contenders. He has more money and a better organization than the other candidates. The party establishment and inside the beltway media are firmly in his corner. That's why the other nominees have been absolutely savaged while Romney, like John McCain before him, has been allowed to skate through the primaries without receiving serious scrutiny.

Yet, every one of those advantages disappears if he becomes the nominee. Suddenly Obama will be the more experienced candidate in the race for the presidency. He will also have more money and a better organization than Mitt. Moreover, in a general election, the establishment and beltway media will be aligned against Romney, not for him. Suddenly, Romney will go from getting a free pass to being public enemy #1 for the entire mainstream media.

If you took all those advantages away from Romney in the GOP primary, he'd be fighting with Jon Huntsman to stay out of last place. So, what happens when he's the nominee and suddenly, all the pillars that have barely kept him propped up in SECOND place so far are suddenly removed? It may not be pretty.

5) Bain Capital: Mitt Romney became rich working for Bain Capital. This has been a plus for Romney in the Republican primaries where the grassroots tend to be dominated by people who love capitalism and the free market. However, in a year when Obama will be running a populist campaign and Occupy Wall Street is demonizing the "1%," Mitt Romney will be a TAILOR MADE villain for them. Did you know that Bain Capital gutted companies and made a lot of money, in part, by laying off a lot of poor and middle class Americans? Do you know that Bain Capital got a federal bailout and Mitt Romney made lots of money off of it?

The way the company was rescued was with a federal bailout of $10 million, the ad says. The rest of us had to absorb the loss Romney? He and others made $4 million in this deal. Mitt Romney: Maybe hes just against government when it helps working men and women.

The facts of the Bain & Co. turnaround are a little more complicated, but a Boston Globe report from 1994 confirms that Bain saw several million dollars in loans forgiven by the FDIC, which had taken over Bains failed creditor, the Bank of New England.

Imagine pictures of dilapidated, long since closed factories. They trot out scruffy looking workers talking about how bad life has been since Mitt Romney crushed their dreams and cost them their jobs. Then they show a clip of Mitt making his $10,000 bet and posing with money in his clothes. All Mitt needs is a monocle and a sniveling Waylon Smithers type character to follow him around shining his shoes to make him into the prototypical bad guy the Democrats are trying to create.

Now, the point of this isn't to say that what Mitt did at Bain Capital was dishonorable. It certainly wasn't. To the contrary, as a conservative, I find his work in the private sector to be just about the only thing he has going for him. But, people should realize that in a general election, Mitt's time at Bain Capital will probably end up being somewhere between a small asset and a large liability, depending on which side does a better job of defining it.

6) The Mormon Factor: This is a sensitive topic; so I am going to handle it much, much more gently than Hollywood and the mainstream media will if Mitt gets the nomination. Mormons do believe in Jesus Christ, the Mormon Church does a lot of good work, the ones I've met seem to be good people, and two of my best friends are Mormons. That being said, Mormons are not considered to be a mainstream Christian religion in large swathes of the country. There will be Protestants who will have deep reservations about voting a Mormon into the White House because they'll be afraid it will help promote what they believe to be a false religion. There have also been a number of polls that show that significant numbers of Americans won't vote for a Mormon as President.

Just look at a couple of the more recent polls and consider how much of an impact this issue could have in a close election.

A survey by the Public Religion Research Institute released late Monday also shows that nearly half of white evangelical Protestant voters  a key demographic in the Republican primary race  dont believe that Mormonism is a Christian faith, and about two-thirds of adults say the LDS faith is somewhat or very different than their own.

You should also keep in mind that if Mitt Romney gets the nomination, Hollywood and the mainstream media will conduct a vicious, months long hate campaign against the Mormon Church. They will take every opportunity to make Mormons look weird, racist, kooky, scary, and different. Would this be a decisive factor? I'd like to say no, but by the time all is said and done, it's very easy to see Romney potentially losing hundreds of thousands of votes across the country because of his religion.

7) He's a flip-flopper. Maybe my memory is failing me, but didnt George Bush beat John Kerry's brains in with the "flip flopper" charge back in 2004? So now, just eight years later, the GOP is going to run someone that even our own side agrees is a flip-flopper right out of the gate? Romney doesn't even handle the charge well. When Brett Baier at Fox pointed out the obvious, Romney's response was to get huffy and deny that he was flip flopping, which is kind of like Lady Gaga denying that she likes to get attention. If Mitt can't even handle run-of-the-mill questions from FOX NEWS about his flip flopping, what makes anyone think he can deal with the rest of the press in a general election?

There are a lot of issues with trying to run a candidate who doesn't seem to have any core principles. It makes it impossible for his supporters to get excited about him because you can't fall in love with a weathervane. Even worse, since politicians tend to be such liars anyway and you know Romney has no firm beliefs, it's very easy for everyone to assume the worst. Democrats will feel that Romney will be a right wing death-beast. Republicans will think that Romney will screw them over. Independents won't know what to believe, which will make the hundreds of millions that Obama will spend on attack ads particularly effective. Ronald Reagan famously said the GOP needed "a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors." That's particularly relevant when it comes to Mitt Romney who has proven to be a pasty grey pile of formless mush.

How many times has the "Republican Establishment" treated us to one lecture after the other on the need for compromise and patience.? After we elect and RE-elect the "Republican Establishment", they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail. It may be worth it for the GOP to lose some elections - if it means that conservativesand the countrywill ultimately win.

If we didnt know it before, WE ... the Tea Partiers, now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, we can thank the "Republican Establishment" for impressing this so indelibly upon us!!! I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise". "COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word. Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none. But my ... LOATHING ... for the "Establishment Republicans" ... is even stronger! The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

If we go back to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, the states have the power to nullify and interpose on unconstitutional acts or actions of the three branches of the federal government.
The states formed a compact(constitution) that formed the federal government and as parties to the compact, they have the power to nullify what is not made “in pursuance thereof”.

The state legislatures need to do this and it is up to each of the citizens in each state to educate our state legislators of the states power to do this.
Our country’s history has many examples of state nullification ie. Kelo v New London, Obamacare, gun laws, alien and sedition acts, etc.
The people at the grass root levels need to take this power back and enforce it at the state levels. It’s a fact that the Republican establishment is not going to do anything and we the people need to say “to hell with you” and take charge of our own destiny.

Let's assume that the Court throws out Obamacare as unconstitutional! What does that really mean to Obama, I respectfully suggest it means nothing, all of the ongoing regulations, expendatures, and planning will in-fact continue unabated right through election time, the states that side with Obama will continue to prepare and receive government largess, the state who are a party to the action will debate whether they may simply withdraw there plans and ignore Obama’s mandates. The only thing that can kill Obamacare is his defeat at the ballot box.

FDR’s attempt to enlarge the Supreme Court so that he could appoint enough new justices to have a majority failed—but the Court suddenly became friendlier to New Deal legislation, and by the time of FDR’s death 7 of the 9 justices were men he had originally put on the Court. (The 8th man was the Chief Justice, whom he had promoted from Associate Justice.)

Obama is contradicting himself. First he says that Congress doesn’t count, so he rules by executive order. Then he says the Supreme Court doesn’t count and doesn’t have the right to overturn a law passed by Congress. So which is it, 0? Does Congress matter or not?

Cased in point: Ann Coulter the other night on Hannity commenting on Obama’s Supreme Court statements said that she doubted those who were asking for 0s school records and transcripts. Now, she told Hannity, she wants to see his records because she now has doubts about his educational background. It’s amazing how we are made fun of and ridiculed until the others have this sudden epiphany that, hey, we may be right! Next, the birth certificate issue will be proven and we right wing nuts will again have the last laugh.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.